The Dumb Cyclists and Pedestrians thread...

[chill1995]

That rant is worthy of a retweet. I mean repost. I mean quote - ah, you get the idea

lol....

[bigfriendlyvegan]

While it won't help you on the front, this makes you quite visible: http://www.bicycles.net.au/2013/06/prov ... r-cyclist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm now thinking of "Tron-ing" up the bike with a bit of EL lighting.

[queequeg]

While it won't help you on the front, this makes you quite visible: http://www.bicycles.net.au/2013/06/prov ... r-cyclist/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I'm now thinking of "Tron-ing" up the bike with a bit of EL lighting.

I ride with one of these:-

http://www.exelitesafety.com/recreation ... t=lumisash" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I get all sorts of comments about it. A gaggle of teenage girls shouted out to me on Friday night. saying "Hi there mr glowing man!"

I love the reaction from little kids though, usually along the lines of, "Look Mum, That is soooo cool!"

I also have the LumiPac for days when I ride the road bike with my backpack.

[bigfriendlyvegan]

Cool vest. I've been looking at things like this for a while now, but have never ventured into it.

[Lukeyboy]

Same with the pedestrians who insist on walking around at night wearing the blackest of black clothes - in unlit areas, they are just about invisible.

"Yeah, I know it's sexy Woodhouse, that's why I bought ten. Now arrange those by colour"
"These are all black, sir"
"Oh are they? Or are five in a dark black, and five in a slightly darker black?"

[eldavo]

Great show to quote

Here's my latest film titled Pannier Apocolypse, starring Blue Steel.


Blue Steel makes a sudden double pass without checking and runs this oncoming rider off the path.


Blue Steel's sudden move ends out here a couple metres later before reigning it back in to the left.

[ldrcycles]

Cool vest. I've been looking at things like this for a while now, but have never ventured into it.

You can get a light like that in the BSO section at Big W now, I forget how much exactly but it's pretty cheap so I reckon it would be good for a trial.

[you cannot be sirrus]

Tuesday morning 6am saw a guy on a BSO ahead of me on a shared path riding/wobbling on the white centre line. I think he was confused by my front blinky making the white line flash on and off. "Passing right" I call and he veers into the right lane. "On your right, mate" he moves further right. I slow down and suggest he stays left and he replied "You were in the left lane and told me to go right"
I suggested he might want to buy some lights and keep left next time, this path is a pretty steep uphill and anyone descending would likely have cleaned him up.

Thursday morning 6am, same path. saw an animal move up ahead in my lights and thought it was a rabbit. As I got closer realised it was a small dog so I slowed to ride around it and nearly rode into the ninja owner dressed in black stepping out of some bushes (I assume he was having a pee). The conversation went
"You might be better putting your dog on a lead mate"
"I don't have to, pedestrians have right of way".
Me "It might be safer for your dog"
Him "Why, he's not causing a problem"
Me " look behind you mate, there's four bikes coming down the hill, if it's wasn't for my lights they might clean both of you up"

REMOVED - re-read the rules, you could simple say that the person used foul language.

[jasonc]

Quote was removed as per above

time for studded tyres. may darwin cleanse the gene pool

[g-boaf]

"I don't have to, pedestrians have right of way".

I think they get that from certain bicycle forums which have huge long debates about cyclists or pedestrians having right of way...

Anyhow - I'm the stupid one today. Didn't realise that my lights were low on power. The back one went out and the front one was going into its power-saving mode as I was rolling up to my driveway. That won't happen again.

[high_tea]

"I don't have to, pedestrians have right of way".

I think they get that from certain bicycle forums which have huge long debates about cyclists or pedestrians having right of way...

Anyhow - I'm the stupid one today. Didn't realise that my lights were low on power. The back one went out and the front one was going into its power-saving mode as I was rolling up to my driveway. That won't happen again.

Maybe. Maybe they got it from the plain words of the statute relevant to their jurisdiction, which says that very thing. Or maybe they drank a 40oz bottle of Bundy at one sitting and threw cards into a hat until they thought of something to write down on a Tally-Ho which they stuck on the fridge and found, to their amazement, that it was both legible and intelligible when they looked at it in the morning. Who knows? Who cares? They're right.

EDIT: They were, of course, overlooking the obligation not to unreasonably obstruct.

[eldavo]

This one for WA:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/c ... /s201.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 201

201 . Pedestrians not to cause obstruction

(1) A person shall not unreasonably obstruct or prevent the free passage of any other pedestrian or a vehicle upon a path or carriageway.

Modified penalty: 2 PU.

(2) In subregulation (1), a pedestrian does not unreasonably obstruct the path of another pedestrian only by travelling more slowly than other pedestrians.

[Regulation 201 amended in Gazette 22 Dec 2006 p. 5819.]

It's not about reasonable or unreasonable obstruction, just to stamp out that "I can be malicious with my protections as a vulnerable party and not be held accountable".
While it's a moaner thread the gist should be about sharing infrastructure and everyone getting along with the get along, safely with understanding of the rules we expect shared understanding for predictable behaviour to reduce the surprises and incidents. Peace love and empathy.

[g-boaf]

Maybe. Maybe they got it from the plain words of the statute relevant to their jurisdiction, which says that very thing. ..... Who knows? Who cares? They're right.

EDIT: They were, of course, overlooking the obligation not to unreasonably obstruct.

Who says their obstruction was unreasonable? That's all in the interpretation - especially in the absence of any other evidence or witnesses to prove otherwise.

Not obstructing or due care and other such things that mean you can't pop across someone's path cause an incident and not be responsible for it. Check the relevant road traffic acts.

It's like Republicans -v- Democrat arguments if you ever frequent any American internet forums.

Unfortunately some people don't want to share the infrastructure like shared paths, especially wide/open ones - so rules need to be brought in to make this happen. Such as keep left at all times unless overtaking. This would make things a lot better. And no riding two-abreast. And no riding with your dogs leashed to the handlebars...

[find_bruce]

As I read it, you cannot be sirrus was complaining about the dog & because I am a wise guy I feel the need to point out that a dog is not a pedestrian, but of course it sounds better in latin canis non pedestrem

[eldavo]

Unfortunately some people don't want to share the infrastructure like shared paths, especially wide/open ones - so rules need to be brought in to make this happen. Such as keep left at all times unless overtaking. This would make things a lot better. And no riding two-abreast. And no riding with your dogs leashed to the handlebars...

They have a few:
Leading animals:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/c ... /s267.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
An aside, drugs and animals http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/c ... /s270.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Cyclists not two abreast and keep left:
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/wa/c ... /s216.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

I know we would like pedestrians to predictably keep left and have a greater consequence for not doing so, but I presume as being vulnerable physical harm is already a grave consequence, it was left open to avoid generating a pig headed righteous mentality of judge/jury/executioner cyclists to pedestrians not keeping left, where the safer preference of slowing down to safe speed for conditions around unpredictable positioned pedestrians occurs. There's probably research for the general cross mode behaviour and prevalence of Keep Left to bleed into pedestrians enough to generally observe the pleas and signage and path markings. There's the age old no-path road pedestrian safety of walking into path on roadside of oncoming traffic, that with cyclist speed differential is a preference for some to do that also, and when debated the solution of having to slow down regardless is typically the safer option.

(I must have eaten to be this understanding... bear in mind the research that people commuting home before dinner with lower blood sugar level have poorer judgement, greater aggression and more likely to road rage)

[high_tea]

As I read it, you cannot be sirrus was complaining about the dog & because I am a wise guy I feel the need to point out that a dog is not a pedestrian, but of course it sounds better in latin canis non pedestrem

Well, you know what they say, "quidquid Latine dictum sit altum videtur".

But heh, nice point . The same thought did make the short and non particularly scenic trip across my mind, followed by the thought that they probably breached some dog-control law that I can't be bothered looking up.

[eldavo]

I think this is the most popular new reg to hit the streets, under general applies to all users:

ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 307

307 . Do whatever the truck you want everyone else can duck off and get out of your clucking way.

Modified AP: 4
(Awesome Points)

[bychosis]

I think this is the most popular new reg to hit the streets, under general applies to all users:

ROAD TRAFFIC CODE 2000 - REG 307

307 . Do whatever the truck you want everyone else can duck off and get out of your clucking way.

Modified AP: 4
(Awesome Points)

I think that some has crossed the Road Traffic Code with the Farm Bird Code. We need to get onto the pollies and rally to get this corrected.

[Venus62]

Saw a great one yesterday. Guy on a bike right on dusk, riding against the flow of traffic. No helmet, no lights and talking on a mobile phone. Unbelievable.

[g-boaf]

Amazing - two people on bikes (with wide flat handlebars) going side by side on a shared path, and expected me to pass on the remain 50cm of path... And the guy wondered why I didn't want to go past them...

They didn't even go single file for an oncoming bike rider... I so much prefer the M7.

[lobstermash]

I have a stretch of shared pathway on my commute that's completely unlit. Pitch black. The number of people dressed in black from head to toe, walking black dogs on black leashes after dusk along there is astonishing. Coupled with the two wheeled spotlighters, I'm surprised I haven't collected anyone along there yet, even though I do take it slow (and it's down hill). Athllon Drive in Canberra for those familiar...

[g-boaf]

Yeah - I get them around my way too. A section near my place (about 5km) is not lit at all, probably to keep the conservation value high. Just have to go slower and use the brightest and best lights you can get.

[Bah77]

Is it a dumb pedestrian thing when runners run against traffic?
Noticed it while riding Coot-tha today, heaps of runners on the wrong side of the road, a little disconcerting when you are rounding a corner on the inside and there is someone running towards you.. on the other hand its not much difference if they were running away as id still have to slow and move around, and theres no footpaths, but then there are trails they could run on.. so i'm a little torn on whether its bad or not.

[GeoffInBrisbane]

Aren't pedestrians (which I guess includes runners) supposed to stay on the opposing side to traffic? Is that the rule here, or just what I'm remembering from England (where it definitely is the rule)?

[ldrcycles]

I remember being taught in primary school to always walk against traffic if there was no footpath and you had to walk on the road.